A Little Explanation

Published:PravdaNo. 85, August 8, 1912.

      Signed:N. B..

      Published according to thePravdatext.Source:Lenin
	  Collected Works,

      Progress Publishers,[1975],

      Moscow,Volume 18,

      pages254-255.Translated:Stepan ApresyanTranscription\Markup:R. CymbalaPublic Domain:Lenin Internet Archive

      (2004).You may freely copy, distribute,
	display and perform this work; as well as make derivative and
	commercial works. Please credit “Marxists Internet
	Archive” as your source.•README

Thequestion whether our Cadets are democrats or a party
of the liberal-monarchist bourgeoisie is of great scientific interest.

Letus recall that even the Trudovik (bourgeois democrat) Vodovozov
showed vacillation on this question.

Concerningthis question,Pravdareferred toMr. Gredeskul’srecent statements, repeated in

			      “Rech”.[1]

Rechanswers: “We do not know what statements by Mr. GredeskulPravdais talking about.”

Howvery nice, isn’t it?Pravdasaid in clear and precise
terms that it was speaking of the statementsrepeatedinRech. Well?  Can it be thatRech does not knowwhat is
published inRech??  Would it not be more natural to suppose that
the liberalswantto forget certain things in their recent past
for the sake of their pre-election playing at democracy?

Bethat as it may, I shall quote, with a view to clarifying an
important scientific question, what Mr. Gredeskul said in a series of
public lectures and what herepeatedinRechNo. 117
(2071), without the editors making a single reservation.

“Atthe very end of my lecture,” wrote Mr. Gredeskul,
   “in arguing against the contention ofVekhithat the Russian
   emancipation movement had failed (allegedly through the fault of the
   intelligentsia) and comparing it with the opinion of those who stand much
   further to the left than P. B. Struve but who likewise believe that the
   movement has brought us absolutely nothing, I upheld a thesis to the
   contrary, saying that a very great deal had been done, that the very
   foundations had been laid for the future constitutional edifice, and very
   deeply and solidly, too, in the very midst of the masses ofthe people. To provide a critical confrontation for these two assertions
   and at the same time to express an idea which I also consider of the utmost
   political importance for our time, I brought both of them into relation
   with the future and said that from the point of view of the former (if
   nothing had been done in 1905–06), everything had to be started from the
   beginning, or, in other words, a second movement had to be organised,
   whereas from the point of view of the latter assertion (that 1905–06 had
   seen the laying of the foundations for a Russian constitution), the
   opposite was true—no second popular movement was needed but merely quiet,
   persevering and confident constitutional work.“Itwas at this point that I was interrupted by the
   Lepaya chief of police (it happened in Lepaya). In this manner there ensued
   in Lepaya a police demonstration against a public denial of the need for a
   new revolution in Russia” (Rech, 1912, No. 117 [2071 ]).

“Atthe very end of my lecture,” wrote Mr. Gredeskul,
   “in arguing against the contention ofVekhithat the Russian
   emancipation movement had failed (allegedly through the fault of the
   intelligentsia) and comparing it with the opinion of those who stand much
   further to the left than P. B. Struve but who likewise believe that the
   movement has brought us absolutely nothing, I upheld a thesis to the
   contrary, saying that a very great deal had been done, that the very
   foundations had been laid for the future constitutional edifice, and very
   deeply and solidly, too, in the very midst of the masses ofthe people. To provide a critical confrontation for these two assertions
   and at the same time to express an idea which I also consider of the utmost
   political importance for our time, I brought both of them into relation
   with the future and said that from the point of view of the former (if
   nothing had been done in 1905–06), everything had to be started from the
   beginning, or, in other words, a second movement had to be organised,
   whereas from the point of view of the latter assertion (that 1905–06 had
   seen the laying of the foundations for a Russian constitution), the
   opposite was true—no second popular movement was needed but merely quiet,
   persevering and confident constitutional work.

“Itwas at this point that I was interrupted by the
   Lepaya chief of police (it happened in Lepaya). In this manner there ensued
   in Lepaya a police demonstration against a public denial of the need for a
   new revolution in Russia” (Rech, 1912, No. 117 [2071 ]).

Mr.Gredeskulhas fully proved that the Lepaya chief of police made a
mistake. But besides this, Mr. Gredeskul has proved two important things:

(1) that the polemics of Mr. Gredeskul and Co. againstVekhiare
so much pretence and empty talk. Actually, in all essential respects, thewholeCadet Party is aVekhiparty;
(2) that the Marxist characterisation of the Cadet Party according to its
scientific, economic and political features is perfectly correct.

[1]Seep. 246 of this volume.—Ed.